Skip to main content

tv   Board of Appeals 82416  SFGTV  September 2, 2016 4:00pm-6:41pm PDT

4:00 pm
>>[gavel] >> welcome to the august 24, 2016 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer this evening is board president honda joined tonight by frank fung and commissioner and lesser's. we
4:01 pm
do expect commissioner swig and will not hear any bills but were going to start with some of the housekeeping items this evening. commissioner swig will be absent tonight. to my left is debbie attorney, here. and will provide legal advice to get at the controls is gary can terrorist could use the board legal assistant and him cynthia cole stained executive director. also joined by representatives of the city department. sitting in the front row is amanda hagans without san francisco public works of cities and mapping and at the tables cory t assistant zoning administrator is also representing the planning department planning commission. we will be joined shortly i believe by senior building inspector joseph duffy will be representing the department of building inspection. the board request you turn off or silence all phones or other electronic devices will not disturb the proceedings. these carry on conversations in the hallway.
4:02 pm
the portable's presentation are as follows: the pounds permit holders and department responds each are given 7 min. to present their case and 3 min. for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven-three-minute periods. numbers of the public not affiliated have up to 3 min. each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone. you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to speed. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions and we have customer satisfaction forms on the podium for your convenience. if you questions about requesting a hearing the book boards rules please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call or visit the board office. we are located at 1650 mission st. in room 304 and is between dubois street and south bend happen. this
4:03 pm
meeting is broadcast live on speed tv cable channel 78 and rebroadcast on fridays, 4 pm on channel 26. dvds of this meeting are available for purchase from sfgov tv. we will now swear in or from all those who intend to testify. please note any member of the public a speak without taking an oath pursuant to the right under the sunshine beaded. if you intend to testify at tonight's hearings and was to give the board your testimony evidentiary weight please stand if you're able raise your right hand and say i do after you been sworn in or from. please, stand up. raise your right hand. >>[oath repeated] >> thank you very much. item 1, tonight's calendar general public comments. this is for anyone who wishes to speak to the board on an item within the board subject matter jurisdiction but not on tonight's agenda. is there anyone here for general public comment? are you speaking under public comment,, sir?
4:04 pm
>> yes. i just want to say i see the close captioning up now. which is great. just a very important it up because one of my colleagues who are hard of hearing is very important so thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? general public comment? seeing none,, second item on the calendar is commissioner comments and questions. commissioners? >> no. nothing. >> the third item is the board consideration of the minutes of the meeting of august 17. >> unless we have any additions or changes to those minutes may have a motion to adopt? >> moved and seconded. >> is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none,
4:05 pm
we have a motion from the vice president to adopt the minutes. on a motion lesser's aye honda aye wilson is absent and that motion does kerry with a vote of 3-0. so, if you would like commissioner, i can call the next item. i can do it slowly. see if commissioner wilson >> bingo. >> good timing. >> i will call item for which is appeal number 16-118. david lau and kevin yen versus the department of public works. bureau street use and mapping. the property is 758 and 787 the 33rd ave. protesting the issuance on june 14, 2016 to crown castle angie west llc. the wireless box permit construction of a personal wireless service facility. >> we will start with the appellants who has 7 min to present
4:06 pm
>> good evening. welcome. >> hi. good evening everybody. my name is kevin yen did i live on 33rd ave. this is regarding the wireless box in the [inaudible] avenue. the violation of article 25 in the way down comcast handled this case. the first one, they're using an old picture in notification. it needs to be updated because the new, it has been changed. they're using the old i would say probably a year and four months at least, old, picture. which is not [inaudible] the neighborhood in. i can show you a picture. this is the one that
4:07 pm
notification from the comcast. you see the tree? [inaudible]. the whole building. as of today, the tree has been like this. so, is that the picture doesn't really show. they're using the old picture to show the people and when people look at it, they don't know what's going on with this. also, the second item is the final notice on the telephone pole,, which is small and difficult to read, and someone you have to using the tool to open the envelope and in order to read it. they
4:08 pm
never mailed any final notification to all the 33rd ave., in that area. within 150. i can show you an example with the post look like. okay. this is the one, the post on the 33rd ave. on one of the telephone poles. this, they stapled it in. in order to take it out you need a screwdriver or something. it's hard to get it out to read it. basically, they did not send all the notifications 2 33rd ave. and eight posted a difficult to read notification. i can give you an example. when this-when they send,, they send a big one,
4:09 pm
like this. and very clearly, it says what's the purpose, but comcast they just try to mislead you. they sent a letter like you like junk mail. one, two, people just throw it away. they did not mention any purpose at all which is misleading. they try to fool people. also, we started last year, i see scrabble required. they took [inaudible] but now they don't even show the diagram. in order to install something on the telephone pole, you are required, by having you install something you need to say the size. if you want to buy something or install something you need to state the socket when they started, they show the
4:10 pm
background. >> overhead, please >> the second time, this is 2015, [inaudible] no diagram submitted. the newest application they don't even show it. last, but not least, when we filed an appeal for this is a letter we received from the board of appeals. this is the letter we received. this is the letter they send the board of appeals, the board of appeals sent to comcast and i can read you some part of the letter. dear comcast or angie
4:11 pm
west llc this is to notify you that an appeal has been filed with this office protesting the issuance of the above referenced wireless box permit. pursuant to article i-eight of san francisco business and text regulations goes. the subject permit is thereby suspended. this is all capitals. until the board of appeals decides this matter and the release and notice of this decision and order. okay. so, within that comcast would abide by this but actually they are not. comcast totally ignored this injunction and [inaudible]. by replacing the existing working telephone pole in front of 877 33rd ave.
4:12 pm
which is the wireless box to be posted. with an extended poll, telephone call to prepare for the installation of the antenna. this poll was replaced on the weekend of august 13-14. saturday and sunday about week. about two weeks after board of appeals sent this letter. i can show you-i have it here. this is the new poll. this is the old one. so, we strongly appeal
4:13 pm
that the board of appeals to reject the permit. thank you very much >> thank you very much. >> we can hear from the permit holder, now. >> good evening. welcome. >> good evening, thank you. honorable president and members of the board of appeals, i martin feinberg in am here on behalf of the permit holder which is crown castle angie west and llc. the permit granted was for a wireless box permit a wireless facility permits, located on 700 block of 33rd ave. between balboa and cabrillo in vinton the permit application met all of the
4:14 pm
criteria for a wireless facilities permit. all of the applications notice and posting requirements were met in the permit was properly issued. a protest of the preliminary approval was filed in proper public hearing was held before a hearing officer. that hearing officer confirmed the permit with its conditions of approval, was properly granted and fully complied with the requirements of article 25 of the administrative code. i know approval was thereafter granted in the individuals present tonight, filed an appeal with this board. the appellants brief in support of a appeal was perfunctory inconsistent of just three sentences. this board has heard a number of appeals and so i just want to briefly remind about the standard for hearing and appeals such as this. the boards positioned according to
4:15 pm
article 25, is limited to simply -i will quote whether the final determination maybe by dpw was correct under the provisions of article 25. so, the test is whether the application met the criterion of article 35. a digit other factors outside of our article 25 or not a matter for this appeal. the appellants asserted three bases for the appeal in the written brief and i'd like to address those briefly and then i'll also respond to the comments made verbally tonight. the first issue raised in the appeal appellants claimed the crown castle did not provide the description of the dimension of the antenna in the box. that make up the equipment that's at issue. that assertion is incorrect. the application contains that information. in addition, the males and posted notice contained photo simulation, actually ellen show that photo simulation of the
4:16 pm
proposed visit. the requirements of article 25 have been fully met in that regard. secondly, the appellants questioned whether the noticing records of article 25 were met. they were. copies of the notice were mailed out to the property owners, all of the property owners within 150 feet above the pole that would contain the antenna as well as the pole that would contain the battery e units. copies of the notices were also posted on the polls, on the block with the facility would be placed. you have amongst the materials submitted to you by my brief and also actually also by the dpw, a copy of the affidavit attesting to the proper mailed and posted notice having been given. the appellants are definitely in
4:17 pm
the appellants tonight, the filed the appeal were definitely among those who received the mailed notice. it is clear that appellants did receive notice, as they filed a timely protest in also a timely appeal. so there's no issue as to notice. it was given. there is proof and furthermore, they filed an appeal so honestly they did receive that notice. third, the appellants claim and i'm going to just quote again from the appeal brief. the dpw failed to protect the interests of the residents of san francisco and instead sides with big corporations. that was the assertion. i realize that emotions sometimes run high in these hearings but there's no place, frankly, for conspiracy theories or wild accusations of that nature. whether the appellant seem to be arguing about is that the alleged health effects of radiofrequency emissions from wireless equipment. however, crown castle provided proof of compliance with all federal
4:18 pm
emissions standards. the report that we filed from an rf engineer and dr. has been reviewed and approved by the department of public health. the radiofrequency admissions will be well within the standards that are allowable under federal law. beyond that, federal law prohibits and especially for busy denying a permit for wireless telecommunications is only based on concern regarding the effects of rf emissions. so, that response to the issue brought up in writing. i would just like to briefly respond to the comments that were made this evening. by mr. yan. first, he asserts that the photo simulation that was submitted was old. and i just
4:19 pm
trust it is in the month since the application was filed, there is a tree in the area that's been trans, but the standard is, we have to file a photo simulation at the time of the application. this no requirements continuously update that with trees growing entries cutting trends and houses getting painted and what happened. we file the proper application containing a photo simulation from that time. second, mr. yan on several occasions referred to some something being done by contest it has the contest is a part of this. as you know i'm here on behalf of crown castle. this uncle he has nothing to do with comcast. third, mr. yan well questioned about the posting of the notice on the polls and i think of already addressed that. fourth, he asserts that while this appeal has been pending, one of the polls had at issue has been replaced. that was not done by crown castle. it was done by pg&e and
4:20 pm
he ordered at&t by no comment about that but i can assure the board was not done by crown castle. i think that response to what was raised this evening as. i will be happy to respond to any questions the board may have. otherwise, i would just think the board for its attention and urge the appeal be denied and the permit be upheld. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the department now. >> amanda higgins crown public works. good evening pres. honda and fellow commissioners. so, i will start by giving an overview of the wireless program. it's governed by public works code article 25. and public works order 184504. the process begins with receiving the application. once we receive it we reviewed for completeness. if it is complete
4:21 pm
we referred to the health and planning departments. once these agencies sign off public works and approve the application, which allows the applicant to post and mail notice to any person residing or owning property within 150 feet. if anyone submits an objection we convene a hearing and her article 25, the director of public works can only grant protest were denied a permit if the director finds the health department incorrectly determine the application, snuggle a public health center or the planning department needs to be applicable to your compatibility standard. or, the application does not comply with the requirements for sending department. when the evidence shows that the applicant tends to apply for modification permit after the permit has been approved and
4:22 pm
the modification would not comply with the applicable compatibility standards. so when the appeal on today's agenda the director found that none of the protest supported any one of the following of the aforementioned reasons in either permit so we approved it. this permits,, the facility will be on to polls and with primary equipment at 758 33rd ave. and the second will would have a battery backup and 750 33rd ave. both polls are pg&e utility poles. the application was amended on november 18, 2015. tentative approval was posted on april 8, 2016. public works can have convened a hearing on the 23rd 2016 and the permit was approved on june 14, 2016. the final approval was posted on june 16, 2016. so, in the appellants brief the
4:23 pm
kind of makes three reasons for his appeal, which i will kind of discussed in more detail. so the first reason for the appeal is that crown castle did not provide any description of dimension of the proposed wireless antenna and the battery backup units. so, article 25 does not say any commissions must be provided in public notice notification under section 1512 article 25, what is required is that her description and photo simulation to termination and conditions from city departments, the procedure of submitting a protest an expiration of how a person may obtain additional information about the application. so, in this case, crown castle did comply with these requirements. the permit for approval said the facility would be installed at [inaudible] 33rd ave. it said the intent of battery backup unit double with a disconnect switch the cabling would all be painted the paint color by sherman williams. the
4:24 pm
simulation of both an note: battery backup all. there instructions on how cement a timely protest in the ground for submitting a protest. all the conditions of approval and was to contact information for both public works and crown castle for further questions. another reason for the appellants appeal is that crown counsel did not notify and deliver it: termination letter to residence within 150 feet of the proposed polls. so, article 25 does not require the applicant to deliver any final determination notice. it only requires the applicant to post it. in section 15, 14 of the article states [inaudible] the notice and we did that on june 15, 2016. so we only required to some contact neighborhood groups or protesters or people come to hear his. we did all that june 15. the third reason for the appellants appeal is
4:25 pm
that public works failed to protect residents by siding with corporations to do ploy wireless facilities which cause health hazards. so, wireless facilities do emit radiofrequency emissions but under federal law the city cannot deny an application if the applicant shows it complies with the federal communications commission's rf standards. so, this application received further dph and required to make a determination entity that on january 20, 2016. so, we-i want to go briefly into the verbal comments the appellants made. in the simulation, the crown castle did send out, it did comply
4:26 pm
with the notice requirements of article 25. even though the tree has leaves here, i think kind of clear where the location is because there is an address right here and then, also, you can kind of tell where the location is based on the buildings. another appellant claimed tonight was that the mailing notice was unclear. here is a copy of the letter that was mailed out to residence. so, it does say notice of a tenant at 10 of approval a site permit and material please open immediately and it does have crown castle's address and logo. then, another argument that the appellant made tonight is that the plans were not sent
4:27 pm
out with notification. under article 25, plans actually do not need to be sent out with public notification. only scrabble and approval notice. so in conclusion, public works please we process this permit correctly and we urge the board to deny the appeal and i'll be here for any questions. >> who changed the poll? >> i'm actually not aware of who changed the poll. >> doesn't require a permit? >> yes. but we have some money permit we process every day i'm not the one that handles like any permits for coal replacements. i would have to get back to you to confirm whether or not we have a permit for the pole replacement. >> thank you. >> we can take public comment it can i see a show of hands of the number people that claim to speak under this item? if you have not already speak out a speaker card if you could do so
4:28 pm
it would help us in the preparation of our minutes. you can hinder to mr. cantero when you come up to speed. first person can come up to the podium. if others can stand to the far side of the room and wait their turn. >> welcome. >> good afternoon everybody. my name is corey smith. i am a residence and entered into haight ashbury neighborhood to hour thank you for the opportunity to speak your today. i completely support burnout the appeal. first and foremost, this is a bad investment and interest better we want to be a first-class city with first class that algae and we need to make sure were continuing to do the things that let set us above and ahead of everybody else. i'm a millennial like antimalarials, i last saw used a last line probably at the end of last century and as we move towards the future think that's an increasingly common perception and the way that we are going. so making sure we do have the appropriate cell infrastructure in place, to
4:29 pm
make sure all of you can talk to your kids is key. again, doing things the right way putting the proper pieces in place to get to where we need to be is incredibly important. previously the opposition was talking about staples. honestly, i do believe they're grasping a little bit as explained by the previous speaker. the information was readily available for anybody. it's on the poll. was a phone number that. although there is a little bit of irony over the fact that not be a actually able to make a phone call if there is improper cell service in the area. it's a little bit of a catch-22 for anybody that does want to die down that path. lastly, for me personally, my job takes me all over this again i do work in the richmond. i do not live there but if i'm out there i need to be able to talk to people that i work with. if i don't i can do my job. a
4:30 pm
westside resident of about 30 years one-time explained to me something about the city and county of the frame. he said that everything east of the visit arrow if the city and everything west of the visit arrow is the county. i really think it's critical-no? i think it's incredibly critical to connect the county. everything needs to be connected the way of the future. i please, ask you reject the appeal. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> welcome. >> my name is diego. i want to echo the sentiments of the last speaker. about needing global infrastructure. the city is a global economic hop. when not des moines. not even miami. or a tokyo. we are a paris. it's kind of absurd that whether somebody dead spots in the city, especially in the richmond goodour culture is envy of the rest of the country but when i visit my musician
4:31 pm
friends in richmond to collaborate with them, i can't tell them i'm almost there. i can't figure out when the next bus is coming because there's somebody dead zones in the mission i'm sorry, in the richmond. we need to improve our infrastructure with all deliberate haste and if that means putting the onus on the residence to read the letters they received a notice is posted, then fine by me. additionally, it's funny there was a comment about weblogs and how we don't use them anymore. i'd like to point out leading research that also shows that there is really no health hazard to mediation from the cell antenna. it also shows that van lines but 250 times as much radiation in fact. these permit about as much as a baby monitor and i think anyone would come to the board of appeals saying no one should be
4:32 pm
able allowed to have a baby monitor. these deny this up you. make this world class city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> welcome. >> hello. my name is sylvia and art, san francisco resident. i am also here to speak on behalf of denying the appeal. for me, this issue is really about safety and equity. i think that we all know that it can be frustrating to have a dropped call him up but in the case of an emergency is actually very dangerous to have a dropped call we seen a lot of examples, sadly, here in this country and other countries. i think that we need to keep that in mind and keeping-making sure we support these measures and keep our thinking installing
4:33 pm
antennas and make sure we don't have that zones is important in case of emergency. then, in terms of equity, i think that it is-is something that is the reason this is an issue about equity is that for many low income people their main way of accessing the internet is through their cell phones which is something that maybe some of us might take for granted, but it is a real concern and taking sure that people have access to the internet is of vital importance. not just because it's convenient and we like progress, although i do like progress, but also because it's really important that we as a city, can access the internet and can communicate with each other. that's what makes this an amazing city to live in that's one i think we should continue to build. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. first of all, i want
4:34 pm
to say that we are not against this connection. we don't want to interfere with the infrastructure of the city and we do not want to make anybody be in danger of not being able to get help when they need it. what we are trying to salvage for ourselves is a neighborhood that will not be overloaded, extremely overloaded with wires,, which may be wireless box, the frequency on it is not high, but after it's on a pole, that is already so wired up, it's bursting at the seams. it all adds up. it's one, and another one and another one and we want progress. it's not that we don't want wireless. we just think they need to design a way
4:35 pm
to get it that is not going to be using polls that were designed to hundred years ago to give power at that time with not anything what it is today. then, the [inaudible] we have to rely on trivialities of the technical word, we missed two people out of the radius of 150 that should be notified. we have to do to those kinds of extremes because they're listening to the letter of the law which crown castle does very nicely. to the letter of the law. they post the picture. the picture is deceiving. they posted and some of you pointed that's not reveal the full extent of how many wires are actually on that poll. and they do it other things that are deceiving. to the people but the intent of that lie is why
4:36 pm
people should be notified. it's because they get to say if they think it is okay or not in their neighborhood. that is what we are trying to do. we are trying to say, our neighborhood, the polls they are using are overtaxed and the one on 33rd ave. is an extremely precarious position for getting more and more wires. if this one goes the next week could be another one and another one because that's what we are doing good work communicating and so we just said this is enough. that's what we want to tell you. and ask you to, please realize that with us. thank you. >> think. one question that you are a resident? >> yes, i am. >> would you state your name for the records. >> my name is isabel malloy. >> thank you. next speaker, please. becomes
4:37 pm
>> daniel davis. i'm president on the street between with a pole should be. i would like to talk first about the deceitfulness about things been done. this is a recently posted as if it was some personal antenna like comcast. i never heard of comcast. i did not give it much thought. later, in talking to people on the street and actually verizon who wanted to put in antennas. so wasn't clear from the start. they did the same thing this month on the weekend of august 12-13th did they put in it was done on the talk. they put in a new poll on 758 33rd ave. the closing on the street said pg&e was going to put it in. as many polls on the block. why did they choose that once. all the other polls in the same condition were not change. why
4:38 pm
was that the only poll pg&e decided to change. i don't think with pg&e making the change. i was out there with the trucks were there. i do not see one pg&e worker out there. no pg&e truck with that. no one had pg&e identification. it was a private company that was doing it at 2 pm saturday afternoon with one pull out. one poll on the block put a new poll in. i'm sure it costs thousands of dollars. who is paying for that? i don't think it's pg&e. >> thank you. >> welcome. >> thank you very much. can you hear me? i just want to comment on some of the previous speakers just recently ttalking about infrastructure and san francisco being a world-class city. we are not opposed to infrastructure and again, as isabel said, getting connected and having good phone connections throughout the city. but, a world-class city does not have as many wires
4:39 pm
above ground as the city does. doesn't look like a world-class city. our neighborhood has so much obliged because of the wires and cables and it's only going to get worse. it will affect property values. it has already. and i am opposing, as are others in the city who feel very strongly about this issue is to put all of our wires and cables underground. that way, the city we much more beautiful. it will be a world-class city and was of all the connections among the phone connections and communication systems that we need. thank you very much. >> do you care to say your name for the record? >> yes. my name is janet mercer. >> taking. next speaker, please. >>good evening commissioners.
4:40 pm
my name is damon louis i'm actually a neighbor of [inaudible]. my argument has been all along that no rules are being followed. i'm going to state this again. the city charter, section 5.103, gives their sons go to the commission and purview to review and approve all designs the public structures, any private structures which extend above the public property, or right away. that is in the city charter. planning commission doesn't see this-the building department does not see this. i don't know. but the permit applicant did not get approval from our commission. so, we are does that leave us? that leaves us with the planning departments review process. their review process explicitly states that on the application can be reviewed under the provisions of the san francisco
4:41 pm
general plan. the general plan explicitly supports the commission and has an objective and a policy we strive for the highest design standards right. in the public right of way. explicitly call the commission out. that's part of the review process. right. you know, the federal telecommunications act of 1996 said they can't deny it , but they have jurisdiction over land use authority. they can regulate the height, location, and visual impacted the mechanisms within the city to determine whether or not these impacts are important enough are it's the job of the san francisco arts commission. they're circumventing this. you know, it's not like they didn't know about this because they have applied for review from
4:42 pm
the san francisco arts commission for antennas laced in mission bay. if they had done that how come they did not do it here? i am just saying that the rules and laws that we have in the city are supposed to, like, be followed. none of this stuff is being followed. so, i just-it's very disconcerting that this is even taken place. i contend that these permits were properly approved because they did not follow these guidelines and i would like you guys to either postpone this decision until a
4:43 pm
determination whether or not the arts commission has jurisdiction or not, or, just deny it outright. thank you. >> excuse me, sir that was determine several hearings ago, but maybe the department looks plain it again. it does require an and. will have the department expanded against you. okay? thank you. anymore speakers? >> no other public comment will start our rebuttal. starting with the appellants. mr. yan. >> hi. i want to provide more information about this [inaudible]. last month there were repealed but tonight. i went to, when i saw this telephone pole replaced i went to all of them and here's the picture that showed. it's not a: incident. all of them got replaced with new telephone poles. with extended height so they can put an antenna on it. i can show you one by one.
4:44 pm
please , these are 40th ave. this is 30th ave. and sunset. this is 37th, richmond district. and this one is 33rd ave. this is all the new telephone replaced. it's not a coincidence. it's not pg&e. i think it something to do with comcast. another thing, people want wireless. i understand that but it comes down to choice. freedom of choice. we give there. we have enough coverage of this wireless stock. we don't want to go over exposed to the wireless. if people, they want the wireless they can walk with comcast to a
4:45 pm
neighborhood to install or the pg&e, the folks that [inaudible] the wireless [inaudible] the workers of contest where they can work with the community. so, they can put together plans they can install in front of their house. i'm okay with that. but in my neighborhood, we have a over 300 signatures. we don't want it. we just don't want this to be an our neighborhood. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. feynman. >> good evening once again. i just want to respond to a few of the items that were raised by some of the commenters. one
4:46 pm
of the commenters indicated that the basis of her objection was that she wanted the city to move towards underground of utility structure. i just want to stress that's really not at issue in connection with this appeal whatsoever. article 25 only allows companies putting wireless equipment to do so on existing poles in the public right of way. this has nothing to do with undercounting of the city. the city adopts underground utility districts there's been opposed to place it on. so, that's maybe a concern to that particular citizen, but that has nothing to do with this particular permits. it was, again, the issue about the city charter
4:47 pm
the arts commission and i know that pres. honda one and city staff to respond to that but it's quite correct that was an issue debated at some length the previous set of hearings and city staff we need on that issue and even the city attorney's office and contacted reported that's not a correct interpretation is that the arts commission does not play a role on that. we happy to speak to that question but i think the request was that staff respond to that but all happy to go into it further if there is a question. it was also an assertion that crown castle knew of some requirements regarding the arts commission because of something going on in mission bay. i can't even i think i can respond to that because crown castle didn't put in insulation in mission bay and that has nothing to do with our company. again, it was an assertion made during the
4:48 pm
rebuttal that some polls were replaced. i can only just say to you, quite directly and quite emphatically, crown castle do not replace any of these polls. not the one that subject of tonight's appeal or others. we don't own those goals. we do not replace them. that's just not-we cannot do it. so, again, unless there's any questions and unless the board would like me to respond further but the arts commission subject, i would just thank you and urge you deny the appeal. >> thank you. i have a question. since several of the polls have been replaced on the block, are there any specific requirements or requests from your company to have those two polls were were you going to put your women on existing prior polls? >> no. you may remember there's some history around that begins out of 1000 cases, probably not. because i'm sorry. there were some hearings last year with a great topic of discussion was citizen saying,
4:49 pm
these polls are to get replace. some of them are older than we want to be sure these good new stable polls to put these-that was last year's issue. so, when crown castle applied for this set of permits, i can't speak for dpw, but i think there was maybe part of it. another part was wanted a more streamlined design. what are the conditions of approval for this permit and the ones heard a few weeks ago was that the polls be replaced. so, they were to be replaced. no one was brought up tonight with that apparently, in the last couple of weeks or something someone has gone ahead and begun replacing those polled. i'm just here to say you we did not do it. because it is a requirement's >> >> but is a condition of approval for more streamlined design and also for the new roles for 208 the new concern becomes active. i will ask the
4:50 pm
department ordinance i do have a question. it is a condition of your permit >> yes. >> so how do you enact that decision? >> if i may ask ms. james from comcast to improvise but the answer is, if we get the permits than the polls become what's called the northern california joint poll of that we can use them and other members of that joint poll authority can use them. at that point we would make a request we still don't own them and someone else teach any burdens them ugly would make that actual replacement. because the other question is since the bulls get replaced it they give you a copy of the permit prior to your equipment being on to make sure they were done properly? >> babying pg&e? >> yes they deem whoever buys to the polls because your question was ridiculous or copy? >> yes. do they give you a copy? >> not necessary. rather pg&e polls so we don't necessarily get those permits. the tends
4:51 pm
thank you mr. feynman. because we can take rebuttal from the department, now. >> amanda higgins public works. so, about the arts commission, whether arts commission review required for wireless facilities, we did bring this response from our city attorney's office to the board of appeals. several weeks ago. so our city attorney makes the argument that they are not subject to arts commission review because the facilities are not intended to be permanently affixed structures. the wireless permit is 10 years. so, so, charter section 5.103 one sets forth the arts
4:52 pm
commission civic design review authority, which is that they show approve the designs for all public structures. any private structure that is affixed that's over or above the public right-of-way and any yards courts usable open spaces which are a part of any substructure. so, while they are-sorry. they are not structures because they are not permanently affixed. so, they're attached to wooden poles in the facilities would not [inaudible] easily removed unbolted, or something that akin to that and not intended to be permit good example of technology improves the facilities would be replaced by updated equipment. but so they're not subject to arts commission review. that's all the rebuttal i have. if you have any questions? >> i do. so, back to the
4:53 pm
permitting of the polls. who is responsible for issuing permits for installation of utility poles? >> so, that is actually-the utility poles are owned by pg&e in this case and i believe crown castle was part of the northern california joint poll association. as a member, they kind of work together with pg&e and the northern call for new joint poll association to like, replace or >> the question is are they required to get a permit to change that whole? >> yes. that would require excavation so they are required to get a utility excavation permit him public works are not familiar with that process. becomes so maybe we should hold
4:54 pm
us over until we can get someone that is familiar with that process. that would be what department of dpw? because easement and mapping department. >> thank you. >> commissioner the matter is submitted. >>that's not all jump out at once. any comment? personally, i would like to see was some responsibility for polls coming up and coming down since we have so many cases before us, prior and coming up. i don't know if that motion would hold, but i am willing to jump on a whim first and make a motion to continue this to hear further from that who's responsible department for who is responsible for that permitting. if there is any notification required for that?
4:55 pm
>> do you want to continue this case or do you want to have an informational presentation on how the process works? >> either way would be fun. i mean, if there's something that's flawed with that process than continuing this case might be beneficial >> i'm not convinced it's directly related. >> on not either. because squash that. i'll let you make a motion. >> are you withdrawing your motion? because yes. i am withdrawn because i know support >> i moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. >> on a motion loftus to deny the appeal and uphold the permit, on the basis it was properly issued, fung aye honda nay wilson aye that motion does past with a vote of 3-1. we
4:56 pm
will move on to the next item. item 5, appeal number 16-109. to limit the benefits versus the department of building inspection planning department approval. 265 deal with way of viewing the issuance on may 26, 2016 to christine kim and bill o'connor of an alteration permit to provide decade rear remodel family room including new windows and sliding glass doors. the model kitchen. this item was heard on august 17, 2016 and other consideration today was continue to allow the permit holders to summit revised plans for the department of building inspection to review the permit holders to technical report and clarify the application of that apartment building inspection information sheet at-05. mr. rabinovich, i think we'll start with the permit holder if it's okay with the president since they are the ones where the burden in coming forward with plans. or, we can start with the department
4:57 pm
>> when we start with the department, first actually >> welcome inspector docilely. >> good evening, joe duffy give you like. thanks. i wasn't sure of the order there but this as you know we were back last week after last week's hearing to clarify some stuff. so, just to let you know that-if i can have the overhead, please-so, the plan is to go with a three old payer system worry of three peers. this is the detail hair. i believe that i go with an 18 inch pier drilled 3 feet indictment into bedrock. iran that by our dvi engineer. he is
4:58 pm
happy to accept that design. it would be observed by a drill tech engineer as part of the alteration during the drilling. then, of course dbi will inspected as well prior to when the rebar is installed in the cage. we also would like the geotech report that the property owners got and adopted as well into the special conditions of that because they went and got it. dbi i might actually the information sheet whenever we read it, just like a lot of things, this one this design seems like less of an impact. however, there is some language in the information sheet that would sort of say, well, it geotech report is required for special conditions including but not limited to
4:59 pm
pier's and various isolate. so we are going to go with pier script is less of an impact i think in the 20 foot foundation. it requires geotech report. we actually went through this at work down at the office and we did not find that it was required for the previous design. this is less of an impact [inaudible]. so the property owners as you heard last week, did go to the expense of getting a geotech report. so we might as well use it and have it in the documents as well. we do need to add special inspections for the observation by a geo-tech into the permit that is easily done by dbi on the permit application. that does not need to be part of the board of appeals vessel conditions. we do that frequently where we add items to special sections after permit issuance. so, with that being said i'm available for any questions, but we are content to move forward with the
5:00 pm
permit. i don't have any objections to it. >> thank you, mr. duffy. >> the other thing that was brought up at the last meeting was your plan checker looking at [inaudible] >> i'm sorry, geotech report spirit he did review the geotech report, yes. because and accepted that? >> yes, very happy with it actually. >> okay so now if there's anything the permit holder wants to add this would be your opportunity. do you have anything to- >> good evening. bill o'connor. i just want to say i think we've complied with everything that was required of us and we like to go ahead and start our construction. i'm not sure if there's anything else we can do.we feel we've
5:01 pm
complied with everything that was required of us and therefore would like to proceed with our construction. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the appellants. >> good afternoon mr. chairman and good afternoon commissioners. we are not against this construction. what we are against is noncompliance with city owned ordiances and codes. what we are asking is strict adherence to the city's codes. again and again, if i heard correctly, the name of mr. yoo was nice. mr. you is licensed as a mechanical engineer whereas in the information sheet sl-five it
5:02 pm
specifically stated that the geotech report has to be reviewed by a licensed technical or civil engineer. and this brings into questions. why do we write codes? why do we explain codes, if we do not plan to follow them? and minimum requirements? to prevent future potential disasters. so, i want went into some detailed research and i looked at the codes that s0-five issued by department of building inspections referred to you and what do they say? okay. they read, they refer to section 1808.7 and 1807.1.
5:03 pm
this is when the geotech we port is required. it's not that you asked for its. [inaudible] enforce its. this is the figure. that is explained what is required and why it is required. furthermore, there is another alternate setback and clearance and again, it refers to geotechnical investigation. right here. we live in the city. we expect proper attention to the construction that is performed in very simple sensitive area and where slopes need protection. so,
5:04 pm
please, do, pay attention and review it properly. to avoid future disaster. >> thank you. >> mr. keegan would you have anything to add a spirit is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, then commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i have mr. >> mr. duffy, we have a question from commissioner wilson. >> i think we talked a little bit about this last time, but her point about mr. hugh not being a licensed geotechnical engineer versus a mechanical engineer. >> i think she said a licensed civil or structural. there's a
5:05 pm
difference. >> but he is because all deferred to commissioner fung to this one. to be honest with you. i can show you how he addresses his e-mails if that's any help to you if you have the overhead, but i am not appear to bring the qualifications of someone from dbi into question that i don't >> make that larger, please. >> he doesn't review structural plans for dbi on a daily basis. he is dbi plan check any reviews structural drawings for dbi. >> pe represents professional and ginny. you can be either structural, civil or mechanical. but i think what mr. duffy is
5:06 pm
reflecting is his responsibility has been to review structural. >> but, this provision as oh-five, i misunderstand it requires a licensed geotechnical engineer in a particular section did i misunderstand that? >> no. >> if that is the case then my question is, is he ivan does he fit that criteria? >> well, yes, certainly in my opinion he would. they would not have them doing this job at dbi if he was not qualified i would not imagine. i mean, i didn't see anywhere in sl-five where it says this geotech report has to be reviewed by a dbi geotechnical engineer. we
5:07 pm
don't have a geotechnical engineer we actually have one engineer who's actually a geotech reuse them for certain things. as a matter fact we use them a lot on some of the cases that the appellant reference last week on land slide and stuff like that here we do not use and are geotech reports are reviewed by dbi engineer plan checkers. as i call them. i don't think we are required anywhere that i read in this in sl-five it has to be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. this is a geotech report and compared by a geotech engineer that cost several thousand dollars. it is a pure reuse it but i don't think we have to have it reviewed by dbi engineer. i think that, if this was one of those projects that did fall under the slope we
5:08 pm
carmen's, then it might be different but it is not because you got your peer review. you got another layers of review. this project does not rise to that level. that was discussed last week. this deck is predrilled speak. yes, there's a hillside but i spoken to mr. q several times in the last week we saw concerned about it. i mean, do not go to any higher. i could've gone to his manager or supervisor and the, the special conditions permit still needs to be submitted and reviewed by dbi. and that so mr. hugh will be seeing this again. >> you answer my question. >> idle quicken but another quick condition and had to have a review by a similar checker because you answer my question. >> one more for clarification. the geotech was not required. the report was not required by this original permit? >> correct
5:09 pm
>> even with the three pier's, it's possibly not but it already supplied its so it's extra it's added information towards this particular case which was >> we also are going to the mr. you know the third-party review, the observation-when this work commences, the owner of the property or the contractor, will be required to conduct the geotech engineer. that person will go to the site. they will observe what is being done. if there's any issues with it that is their job to flag and stop it. obviously, that happens all the time. it's hard to happen in this case as well. that's got to be part of the special inspections that dbi required in addition to the dbi inspections. then work on ask for a letter and a report on this condition and the purpose of that is to say that we have it in the record as well. on a certain date, i license geotech engineer observed the drilling of pier's at 265 it would. that would be in dbi records as. in fact, we would expect the
5:10 pm
geotech to do his job and observe and if there's any issues though flag it. >> okay. thank you inspector duffy. >> no further-i think that the review has been significant on the project. i am prepared to adopt the revised drawing as a condition of our approval. if others have comments, go ahead and make them. otherwise i'll make a motion >> i think they want to adopt the geotech report. that's what
5:11 pm
the department recommended. that something you're considering as oh. >> i am fine with that. >> i'm going to move to grant the appeal and to condition the permit and the adoption of the revised drawing, dated 8-19, representatives by sk-one >> no. that's the date on here. >> as a special condition, also the adoption of the geotechnical reports. >> i am hearing something from the audience. this is dated 8-19. is that correct? okay so
5:12 pm
we've a motion from vp fung to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to reflect the plan submitted at the hearing by the permit holder david dated 8-19-16 sp1 and to include the geotechnical report provided by the permit holder fung, is there a basis for your motion? i did not catch it. >> that it satisfies the departments determination of adequacy of structural support. >> okay. thank you. on that motion, lazarus aye honda aye wilson aye. that motion passes with a vote 04-0. we will move on to the next item. that is item 6, appeal number 16-07.
5:13 pm
nancy norton versus department of building inspection. 6 39th ave. appealing an issue as april 14, 2016 >>[reading ordinance]. we will hear from the appellant first. >> welcome. >> hello again. thank you for hearing this item concerning the property where i live in the front building at 66 9th ave. i am here to speak about the alteration permit 201604 134678 which was issued to fergus oh sullivan for the address 630 a ninth avenue which is the northern lot unit,
5:14 pm
which is directly behind the front building. i have some pictures here which are included in your packets, but they are in color. it might help to see the detail. >> can you posit time while she is doing that? thank you.
5:15 pm
>>while she is looking for it, we will take a small, little break. >> >>[recess] >> we have to wait one moment. >> give us one second. one of the commissioners took a small break. that worked out for everybody. >> >>[recess]. >>
5:16 pm
5:17 pm
>> okay let's get the show on the road. >> so, just so you get an idea of what the juxtaposition is of the two buildings, this is the front building. in which i live. then, the bottom far right, this is the door that
5:18 pm
leads to the back. the view-i live in the top apartment so this is the cottage the mother in law unit in the back on the left-hand side of this slide. then, the second picture is a view to the door of the basement of that cottage and that is the subject of this permit heard it was a retrofit for that basement. so, my protest about this particular permit is around the filing of plans that did not show the true situation of this building in the first place and then changes that were made for that space during construction, which kind of
5:19 pm
moved the building work towards what the plans submitted it says. so, this is the original state,, when there was a tenant in that building of the basement. looking into the basement. this is the main room as you go in the door, and then, there were two rooms next to that. at the right hand side, the right-hand room, and these two pictures of the room on the left-hand side. showing the back of the room, the window, and then the front of the room with the door and closet space. these pictures were taken after construction had begun and you can see, clearly, in the
5:20 pm
left-hand picture, that the wall of the left-hand room has been taken down. in spite of the fact i reviewed the plans that were submitted at dbi and the current-the drawings submitted with the permit shows a completely open space in the basement level and states there will be no change, that is, to that floor plan. that's why i filed an appeal against this permits. so, now that you have the correct facts. about this cottage i believe the alteration permit issued
5:21 pm
over-the-counter after a quick review, a false information, should be rescinded and that no building permits should be issued for any of the units at 626-without a complete review of the plans by the planning department and an opportunity for neighbors and residents within 150 feet of the structure to have a look at the plan and verify that they actually coincide with the existing structure. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder. >> welcome mr. patterson. >> thank you president honda and commissioners. i will start my slideshow as well.
5:22 pm
commissioners, at some point you start to feel like you've seen this movie before. this is this appellant's fourth appeal on this building. in addition to discussion or review request for the front building, which was resolved a couple weeks ago, this is maybe the simplest issue that we've seen here yet. it's a voluntary seismic upgrade permit for the roof cottage. it was issued on april 14 and substantial work was done right after issuance. as
5:23 pm
you saw in the photos, good the appellant appealed the permit him april 22. the account is complaining that walls were removed from the downstairs storage level and they were omitted from the plans. these are not actually walls good as we outlined in our brief and in the declaration of attached, these are actually dividers or partitions. their nonstructural and their one binding materials basically stood on the edge is not fire rated. not stud walls and there certain no structural purpose. this is a seismic permit so it's entirely reasonable for nonstructural dividers to not be shown in the downstairs storage room. in fact, the permit explicitly
5:24 pm
says, quote, the envelope work layout change. the workers during construction took it upon themselves to take down these dividers during construction as a means and method of determination it they're moving large plywood sheets and proximally 18 foot long steel beam into this basement space. so, those dividers as i understand, were in the way. it would be very easy to reinstall the dividers if desired. but, even if those removal of those dividers was not allowed which is not the case here, to be clear, the remedy is not to appeal the original permit. the remedy is a notice of violation for work exceeding the scope of the permits. in fact, the appellant started with a complaint on that basis. the department of building inspection sent an inspector, who came out and inspected and closed the case and to go from that upon its website, complaint tracking
5:25 pm
site, the inspection revealed all work done was as per approved the plans and prior to that stop work notice from the board of appeals at the contractor to continue work on the permit that is still issued . this is the upstairs work. the kitchen and bath remodel of the cottage. complaint enclosed. we know that a permit is not required for these divider walls because this is actually covered by the building code. section 106-84.7. in this section says, very clearly, when approved permit has been issued a separate permit for alterations work should be required for any change of work or change set here after. situations which require a separate permit required a phone. in the first item, changes in partition layout that impact other code requirements. that is exact we
5:26 pm
were looking at here good partitions that do not back other code requirements. so, it permit is not required for removing these dividers, these partitions, in a person's [inaudible] if it were it would be potentially transfer notice of violation but that apartment already looked into that and decided that, no, there are no grounds for that. so, the question that we come back to again on the fourth appeal, is why is the: appealing this spirit she doesn't claim to live in this building. the as you saw commit to lives in a different building on the lot on the top floor always away from this cottage and the work we are looking at is interior in the cottage. the answer is, there is a fraud lawsuit filed against her by the landlord and this is seeking to use board of appeals process as leverage in settlement negotiations about
5:27 pm
lawsuit. currently, last i checked separate trial january of next year good maybe that will be rose all. this force process and permit of appeals should not be grounds for resolution of an unrelated lawsuit. i will note, again, while this appellant claims to live in the front building, the basement pieces of this lawsuit she actually spell is taking a tax exemption for living in the building in hillsboro. structural engineer rodrigo santos is here and will tell us a little bit about the permitted work. is there any questions about what's actually being done in the building, but this is public policy the city to get this work done quickly and we hope that the board will deny the appeal so that seismic upgrade can be completed. thank you. >> thank you, mr. patterson.
5:28 pm
>> commissioners, rodrigo santos constructional engineer for the price. this is a voluntary seismic upgrade. it does not alter the exterior of the building at all. it simply calls for the introduction of a highwood walls could conventional [inaudible] to the existing foundation. and strengthening of the floor framing. this is the first one for me doing this type of work for about 27 years and i've been experienced some unappealing a voluntary seismic upgrade. i'm glad this is televised and i hope people that are watching are not discouraged from seismic upgrading their properties. just experienced a earth quake in italy in old city of san
5:29 pm
francisco is an old city. do, seismically upgrade your properties. it's important. not only that but it's a good investment. that's all we are applying for. that's all we obtained permits for. it was no additional modifications and no alterations. the so-called partitions for the walls were simply dividers standing on edge. and they served no purpose whatsoever. thank you. >> mr. santos, you are putting in a steel frame? 18 foot long been steel beam? ordinance commissioner fung a structured >> commissioner fung it was simply a vertical carrying system. >> think. mr. patterson i've one question. so the voluntary
5:30 pm
retrofit the mud did it require voluntary or involuntary look we location of tenants? >> no, sir. there's no tennis in occupancy of the rear cottage. no relocations involved in this work. >> started on trying to jog his memory as i remember this being before us maybe once or twice. >> right. i believe one of the previous appeals were in the via cottage was cannot somehow result in revocation of this building being necessary. i think the board agreed that rather far-fetched. >> thank you very much. >> think. we can hear from mr. chee. >> welcome. >> good evening pres. honda planning department staff. the permit before you was issued by
5:31 pm
the dbi on april 14 of this year. the department was not routed to the planning department for review and this was due to the minimal interior nature of the scope of work of the permits. the appellant has expressed a concern that the project was not sent to planning department for review. but notation she's recorded on the property was basically not triggered and therefore should was not provided notice. however, the notation is only apply for permits under the preview purview of the planning to permit an purview code. because the scope of work for this permit would have only required to come to the planning department if that basement level contained any bathrooms or bedrooms or sinks that were being proposed to be moved were added and those situations, we would have seen a permit from a rooms down perspective. because it was essentially, just a walled in were not walled in depending on the perspective, storage area,
5:32 pm
the permit was not required to the planning commission, planning department, and therefore the notation was not triggered. just briefly, it wasn't in the brief, but i believe the appellant mentioned permit in the prior tenant in that space. and that there may be some concern that. as you may know, the city does have the comments now for the protection of unauthorized units. however, to be considered an unauthorized unit as to be a space that's capable of functioning independently which includes having plumbing and a bathroom, which is basement level space does not have. on that issue as well, it would not be required to come to the planning commission planning department for review. so, in my opinion the permits as it was presented did not require planning department review. i'm available for questions you may have. >> that unit in the back,
5:33 pm
that's nonconforming structure, isn't it? because it's a nonconforming structure, yes that is required is located in required yard >> on that basis it trigger anything? >> the structure did not not removing of the removing any the rear yard space >> [inaudible] question. is the appellant i did the appellant was concerned about the drawings presented and looked upon council of the permit holder has expanded as long as there's just partition walls. they need not be reflected on that as though you do want to elaborate a little bit on that, please? the tends sure. i leave my colleague from dbi might want to address that will bit more from our perspective, even if they were with jeannette walls, if that space is only used for storage and there is no plumbing
5:34 pm
additional bathrooms and bedrooms, who was not a rooms down situation is to when not required planning department review. >> okay, thank you. >> inspector duffy. >> joe duffy, dbi. the permit under appeal seismic upgrade of existing rear cottage per 80-094 using appendix a for structural only no envelope or wall layer change. the permit was approved on a form eight over the approval. it was [inaudible] it was approved by building plan check. dbi engineer several you popular name. >> taken a. >> he must be the only one working there. >>[laughing] so there's a structural permit you reviewed again. anyway, we do have special inspections on their. by the engineer of
5:35 pm
record. the basis for the appeal, obviously, was the omission of the divider walls in the storage area of the property and a lot of downsizing engineers reading those off. the kind of one by boards we call them 3/4 inch usually the oath i will be a 4 inch grooved and dividers so it sort of divided up the storage space into separate compartments. worse case scenario for dbi, if this was drawn to our attention we could ask them to provide a revision permit to show those dividers in the storage area. we did get a complaint at dbi and was entered into our complaint tracking system get the cases open on 4-20-2016. we went to the site on the 27th of april.
5:36 pm
there was no one at the site. eventually, then on may 18 inspector walsh who's the district inspector for that area, said he met with mr. sullivan the property inspection reviewed with over the work was done as approved plans and [inaudible] i think you've heard back from the attorney as were. the discussion on the appeal was just about the complaint believes that during work in the basement. they brought in a beam. she believes they are doing work beyond the scope of the permit could so we didn't actually mention the divider walls as part of the complaint, but there was a building permit in place at the time. they brought in a beam i think the beam was addressed because i think they're using that for shorting. the work beyond the scope of the permit, while the permit was the seismic upgrade. i don't think they were doing any work beyond the scope and as i say, if the issue is the divider walls, a revision
5:37 pm
permit could be obtained to show that if need be. if that was a habitable space we certainly would want to see the layout, but i personally, as a 17 years working at dbi, i wouldn't get too excited about a storage room we just split up the compartments. i do call them as well like paul dividers. so, i do think the proper permit was properly issued. i don't think it's eight make or break for a permits, person. i am available for questions. >> two questions that you think are creating habitable space downstairs doing inspector duffy? because is not showing the plans. i might be something in the future. they'll be a question for that- >> the other question is that is the planning department offers pop-up notification good is there anything equivalent to the building department at this point?'s steve >> we don't have anything good we encourage people to monitor
5:38 pm
the website but the public cannot go in and file a block group notification on and added. dbi stuff can do it if we think it's warranted for example on the property >> so what is a possibility that staff can make that recommendation implied that particular problem? >> we can flag a property if we feel it necessary, yes. in order to make sure that someone doesn't get a wrong permit sometimes we come down and we need to see a building inspection division it if we issue a stop work. the penalties are put on for example peers would you use it. we don't use it a lot we do have the ability to block >> we've seen several times where the public is been upset that they felt that the gun around but there's no notification from planning over-the-counter building permit because thank you for explaining that >> just the seismic upgrade. it seems pretty harmless. >> okay
5:39 pm
>> i cannot answer in-depth. a lot of times we do see a project like this were the grand floor storage would've eventually created two rooms dump your we see that all the time. so the seismic upgrade in addition to doing the seismic upgrade also increases the ceiling height of that area. so we know also the news that this >> that things look a little nicer than storage frames >> yesterday that can be done it would acquire a separate permit in the planning department would be involved in that review and the pounds could indeed appeal that >> that's not before us this evening. >> no. >> mr. duffy, we did not have the plan as part of the packet briefing packet. have you reviewed the plans of? >> i was just handed the plans. they were in my office to get >> do you see anything there? >> the area is labeled as
5:40 pm
storage. i can put it on the overhead if you wish >> no i think it's better if you look at it. is there anything that is sticks out in your- >> nothing that sticks out. the areas just labeled as one storage area iin question and does not show the divider walls. it's-as i said, sometimes engineers do the drawings. with all due respect, sometimes they're doing the structural drawings and sometimes items like a divider wall would not be put on the. we were not get that excited. it's not supporting anything about. not a structural wall. it's not a 2 x 4 wall with sheet rock on it per se. >> okay >> no i do not see anything on the plans to answer your question. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, we have rebuttal starting with the appellants.
5:41 pm
>> well, a couple of items to the point. in fact, there was a resident in the cottage, but he was bought out before the upstairs renovation permit was applied for. it is the wind boards sstated intention to get rid of all the existing tenants in the building. so he is successfully bought out and then harassed and then bought out to of the tenants so far. so, this is contributing to the attrition of affordable housing in the richmond. when i filed the complaint with dbi about
5:42 pm
the work going on it was actually had to do with the work that was happening upstairs , which to my understanding of the permit taken out for that work, was just for the removal of some sheet rock and the renovation of the kitchen and the bathroom, actually, that space was taken down to the studs and the ceiling removed and everything. so, to my perspective, thescopeofwork.idonotevenknowabo utthe -andthisiseventhoughihad i do not know about the retrofit until i talk to the department of building inspection and so i realize another permit had been
5:43 pm
taken out. so when i call for an inspection that's why did not put anything about the walls down with. in fact, that space when you say it's a nonconforming building, in the four years i've lived in the front building, different tenants have actually used that space downstair as bedrooms. nonconforming space, but it has been used as bedrooms. there's been in journal stairway that leads down from upstairs. that's why there's a closet in one of those rooms. or, there was. anyway, thank you for your time because excuse me, ma'am. there's no bathroom or kitchen in the lower section? >> no. >> okay, think. because we can take rebuttal from the permit holder. >> thank you commission. brian
5:44 pm
paterson for the permit holder. i'm honestly not sure what else to say about this matter. i do not handle a buyout of previous occupants in that we are building. i'm informed that happens sometimes prior to permitting there. i am also informed that it's not the owners quote, stated intent to get rid of the tenants. not sure where that comes from or what that means. i'm told that's not true. and, this is interesting news that downstairs had someone sleeping there at some point but this would not qualify as removal of the dwelling units under planning code section 317 because there is an internal staircase to kenny upstairs and downstairs storage level as the poem just stated. nor, with that used in legal were
5:45 pm
allowable going forward. happy to answer any questions and anything else. mr. sanchez >> in regards to the seattle commissioners that are applies to [inaudible] issues. let's assume you experience in emergency structural problems such as [inaudible] and hit the garage were removal wall. imagine if you had to go through a process and notify the neighbors before you can provide emergency shoring. there is a reason why structural permits are issued without having to engage in planning and this is precisely the type of effort that is no planning implications. there's no modification to the exterior of the building at all. it
5:46 pm
simply five wood sheeting or seismic strengthening over a building. nothing out. no enlarged and of the space. no modification of any kind. thank you. >> thank you, mr. santos. >> anything further from the department? nothing. okay. commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> the question of whether those partitions impact the review process, i'm in agreement with what has been said that they probably did not . at this point i don't really see any reason why this permit
5:47 pm
would not be substantiated. >> i agree >> i also concur. i think this is a matter for a different court. i think this is just going through the process >> would you like to make a motion, sir? >> moved to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was properly issued. >> thank you. on a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued lazarus aye honda aye wilson aye. that motion does pass >> welcome back to the august 24, 2016 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. ron item 7-eight and seven-beat
5:48 pm
this is appeal 16-11568-1161 sanders against department of building inspection. but for 07 30th st. appealing permit issuance on alteration permit to alex schwartzman. the first on june 6, 2016 for new friends at sides and rear 8 feet tall and the second is to excavate 1-2 feet 10 yd.3 trends and repaired by the walkway to allow plumbing and electrical conduits to the embedded underground. because they're too appeals will double the time for the appellant to 14 min. and whoever the jumpy happened the appellant and step four. >> welcome >> good evening president honda the members. i'm the attorney representing the appellant one saunders. i will probably refer to him throughout the evening as many as that is how he calls himself. you'll notice that the appellant did not provide a
5:49 pm
brief. our appeal is very simple. it's in reference to essentially, the second permit. i have photographs of the permit itself that i would like to put on the screen here. this is the permits. sorry. this is the permit that i have-we have appealed. most importantly, if the second page. it describes exactly what is being appeal. i will read it to you because it's very difficult to read. it is basically the trench with the purpose of the removal for the placement of utilities from the street and the trenches along the walkway in the front of the property. but interestingly on the back of the permit application is language that says, not applicable. relocate existing online utilities under
5:50 pm
concrete walkway to we your unit. not a project under ceqa perpendicular code sections environmental review memo exterior in kind repair not visible from the public row. then, client which is my understanding, is a planner by the last name of client signed off on that. here is the area in question with respect to the walkway, which is difficult to really see due to the shading. but, here is where you can see the project itself from the walkway. this is an example of the project a number of months ago in the rear of the property and i bring to the attention of the commissioners, there was no section of 311 notification sent to the neighbors and there was no possibility of appealing the site permit at that time.
5:51 pm
interestingly, this project has been going on for over a year. it was an original permit appeals about a year ago by another neighbor and that appeal fails. we actually brought this to the attention of the commission due to a variety of different reasons and it's essentially, the failure of the department, department of building inspection, to comply and effectuate their code enforcement provisions of the code. i am going to just recite certain things that i like to retain about a minute-1.5 to the appellant renny saunders to speak directly as to this issue. i first appealed the first permit on june 21 2016. i peeled the other permit, the same date on june 21st of 2016.
5:52 pm
this is for the excavation of the 1 foot trench, which is what i just showed you. also, for a new fence to be constructed around the perimeter of what is actually sort of the front yard of the property, which it sits in front of this particular structure. so, this is a lot with there's a building on the front which faces the street. there is a small yard area and then there's this particular structure in the reader of the property. there are two separate lots on this area. on june 21 one we appeared the alteration permit we brought to the attention of the department that this was not simply a remodel of existing. this was essentially effective demolition without permit, without processing, without any appropriate approval by the city and county. never went to planning. etc. on july 15, 2016, there was a investigation
5:53 pm
[department of building inspection and data sheet number 2015 27203 was instigated. however, nothing came of that. that had to do with the siding. so, we then approach the department again specifically, inspector don phoenix and we requested he please provide a stop work order at least until the department of planning code review what all was going on with this property. he refused. consequently, on august 1, a letter to mr. stevens was provided and we we're rated his statement, which was basically, a building permit to replace sheetrock automatically included the reframing of the entire house. that is a direct quotation we have also confirmed that to the department and to mr. scott sanchez zoning administrator of the
5:54 pm
department of planning. on august 15, still not having any action by the department of building inspection-i'm sorry on i apologize. on august 17 we went to the department. i personally met with permit and with the building inspector. mr. don phoenix with senior inspector reseal hernandes mr. pat bosco bitch are permit consulted with also in attendance. we provided a letter we providing to planning to mr. phoenix. mr. phoenix then threatened mr. bosco bitch perspective the fact that, if we were appealing this particular project we better be ready to appeal the 20 other projects in the neighborhood that were going on exactly like this. so, i just was bringing to your attention this is sort of a problem in the neighborhood
5:55 pm
. we do-we do believe it's appropriate at this time to suggest the planning department take this under simitian for further investigation. i do believe the planning to carmen has any idea this has happened. i think there is something that is happening that apartment building inspections negating, for whatever reason a stop work notice on this property and we believe it's now appropriate to the planning department to take it under simitian and further investigate. that is essentially the except of my presentation. i more than happy to take any questions. i know mr. bosco bitch would also like to inform the board but also is happening at the property. thank you very much. >> so that evening commissioners. this is really a request for de novo review of this whole project. their original permit, 2015 is this permit. it's a remodel it has drawings could if you have better reading glasses than i
5:56 pm
do you can read it but as stimulation calculations on it. it talks about minor work on the exterior of the drawings specifically say i'm a repair siding is required. the back of the application reads, steve [inaudible] interior remodel, exterior including new windows and doors and new deck at front. that's it. that's the scope of work. these are the rules for demolition planning action as a guideline and actually has a passout. it allows you to do more than just what you said, but it has to be because there is a problem. that blows my mind. you can see it all. the drawings. i went through the drawings very carefully to the drawing says, referring the roof. that's with the demolition talk says. the drawings as a new foundation. it's what it says. my letter to the building department basically says the reframing the entire building get the
5:57 pm
response was you can reframe the building make sure you get the sheet rock square. i've done this on was 40 years. i almost blew my mind when i heard that. maybe you do it to buy two next 28 2 x 6. when i said, what are you doing when you're doing to buy kansas. no. it just wearing the build. that's not what the planning code allows you to do. they, then, get them another permit which allows him to do more siding with the building department, separate inspector said wait a second, you did this is not 100% siding replacement. it is some siding replacement, number one should you need to go get another permit. that took them four weeks. eventually the building permit and said, stop. they dragged the man. they came in and talked to patrick o'riordan. he said that to go down to plan. the problem with this permits, which exceeds the other permits, it says not visible from the streets. it
5:58 pm
standing on the street. there is the building. it is visible from the street and it's a revision permit to approve permit from plan. it cannot go to planning. so can i talk to planning staff. they are going, wait, that period do not come to us that we are supposed to be seen this permit to be able to determine if they are allowed to do that. which, i don't think you're allowed to do and i'm pretty sure it exceeds the threshold they are talking about. not a little bit, but totally exceeds the threshold. so, here's some more pictures of the building, boards really going on here, and planning does have a complaint-i given them a complaint-but we are requesting the board to take it under de novo authority to look into the totality of this work and make sure the plans comply. were saved to the project sponsor, don't do any more work until you get your siding permit
5:59 pm
which of the building department physically walked him down to planning and planning told him, you need to do drawings. you need to get a permit. that was two days ago and they walked away. they have not told that comment or ask planning to stand up and say, stop doing work until we have a chance to look at the size of the deconstruction of this building so that planning can regulate their own rules. we request that you do this either you guys do it or the planning department do it, but i don't believe this is a remodel good every framing member has a new framing member next to it and the stated purpose for sheet rock is insulting as the threat i got when i brought it up. thank you. >> are you finished? why is there no brief?
6:00 pm
>> there was no brief mr. fung because we anticipated we were going to be able to resolve this matter with the department directly. when we appealed the permit for the utility for the walkway along the left side of the front building we-that was the only permit we could up you get all the other permits had already bested. that was the last permit we had. there he clearly, that was the permit we had to appeal. since that time, irrespective of our numerous discussions, meetings, letters, complaints to the department, here we stand. we never anticipated this >> but happy your comments are related not to the to permits in front of us. >> correct >> more than half >> we had no idea previous permits had been improperly
6:01 pm
obtained. >> do you understand were doing with a permit that you brought before us? because yes, i completely understand that >> i confer with commissioner fung we've heard nothing about those >> welcome i can explain that again. that was the beginning of my presentations because i've heard what i needed to. thanks >> thank you. >> so, we are done with the appellants. we can hear from the permit holder. >> hello commissioners. so, we supplied our brief and was based on the to permits we had because that was what we will thought we were here >> could you state your name? because my name is alex schwartzman. >> thank you. >> one of the permits was for the fence. the fence was designed in conversation with the applicant. when he decided to appeal the permit they
6:02 pm
provided us with a partial survey that showed it was partially on their lot line. so, we redesigned a fence to be only on our side. the designed in such a way to match the height of all other existing fences. so that it can be seen on their side. the reason for putting the fence up is because therefore fences along the walkway that are various design, various degrees of condition and that is our current update. that's what you see from the street. so, we would like one long continuous fence will totally attractive. the new plans are in the brief we provided that shows the fence on our side completely. we ask that obviously the appeal. be completely denied and we are allowed to move forward with our new fence the way we designed it. the second appeal were going in the trench could i want to point out one thing. the permit is for the walkway. the picture they provided to you is not of the walkway. the picture is of the stairs. we are not-i will show you-this is the walkway. we
6:03 pm
have pulled a permit in the past two redo the front steps which are the pictures i provided to you. our neighbor in front of us was concerned because his stairs are where those steps are work is while and he was concerned that might compromise his foundation. we drill test holes. we saw his foundation does not go very far to me cancel that permit. we have no intention on tearing up those front steps. we are working with this walk. but for the permit for that white specifies walkway. regarding these other issues i don't think this and this is only the time to discuss it but i do want to point out, the claims they're making that we have not been addressing this are not true. we met with patrick o'riordan on monday to try to understand this. what transpired was when marie seo
6:04 pm
when mr. fernandez came to us and gives us those questions about the scope of work the siding, we showed him our approved plans to went through planning and the note that someone here mentioned about repairing the siding, the actual note on the plan says, repair patch, or replace as necessary. it says, or the place. i agree, it is subjected mr. fernandez told me that is subjected. he instructed me, go to dbi today and get a revision permit stating what you're going to do pure so i did. i went to dbi. i said any revision permit say number placing the siding. i followed their instructions i wrote it down. i give it to them. nobody told me i had to take it to planning or i mean intake or whether there is posted directly where i'm going. i followed the rules and three months later they're coming back to only meet this is an issue. that's our position. we ask that you denied both of
6:05 pm
these appeals on this basis. >> what is the ownership nature of that walkway? >> it's ours. it's part of lot 100%. >> it's not an easement? >> note >> it's a flag lot, correct. i can show you this is aplat map. >> overhead, please did because this is a plat map. this is our property. this highlighted portion is our walkway. it's about every 75 feet. just a walkway. >> is that a property line in the open space area? >> there is no-so our property line is here. >> that's what i was asking about >> that this portion here is our front neighbor. >> which is mr. saunders? >> no. mr. saunders is this
6:06 pm
property. i might add, because you did mention the word easement, this issue came up because because you might want to speak into the microphone. i'm sorry, sir >> right here, mr. saunders has a gate that leads out into our property. we told him quite some time ago, we want the gate closed and we're been a be putting up a fence. then, the attorney started calling and the man started coming in the appeal started and the violations started. it's all just been so we would give up and give him an easement, which i for tony i don't think this is the proper place to that discussion. >> did you actually see people using that date? >> for about four months he was actively using it without permission to construct his fence install a hot tub into
6:07 pm
his yard. install lighting system, water features, power units. i might add, none of the work he did was with permits. but we do not complain. we let him use the walkway. we also milly was getting in where deception which is one of the reasons we were so delayed and we asked his contractor, please, you need to hurry up and stop using our space. at one point, the contractor says, well mr. saunders says this is a shared walkway. that's when this all started. >> thank you. >> thank you for your time. >> we can hear from the department, now. >> good evening again present honda commissioners. any department staff. as mentioned, there are two permits in front of you tonight. building permit 2016-068-9543 issue by dbi on june 18. that was the permits for the repair to the walkway in the utility work in the
6:08 pm
ground. that comment was not sent to planning department for review. it was not under our current nuclear we do not have a need to review that permits. the second permits building permit 2016-05260. did come to the planning department for review. it was for an 8 foot tall fence along the side and rear get that permit was approved over-the-counter on june 6 of this year. it's not required any type of neighborhood notice. as you know, there's a lot of information presented about other permits were elated to this building could in terms of process, the comments were accurate in the sense that dbi in the planning department were notified. complaints have been filed. and we are going to be working with the property owner on the issue of whether or not
6:09 pm
the work they did when the on the scope. but the prior permits, and the new permit is needed then that permit will go through the required procedures. i'm not to go into the details of those permits unless you have questions get a leave that up to your purview and with that mom available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> joe duffy dbi. the two permits under appeal this evening for the exudate 1-2 feet above 10 yd.3 trench and repair of private walkway to about plumbing and electrical conduits to be embedded underground that building permit was is a [inaudible]. it was reviewed by building inspection division building plan check and issued by
6:10 pm
central permit bureau on 8 june. second permit for a new fence side and rear 8 feet tall. again, building inspection division looked at it did went to city planning. also building plan check. then it was issued again formate over the current approval. the fence permit to my thing, does address a notice of violation that we issued on the 18th of may, 2016. it doesn't reference the notice of violation but was first installing a fence at the planning site but sitting six. [inaudible] website a property. again proper permits and plans for fence on left property. so, that permit was take care of that notice of violation when the work is finished. you did hear a lot of comments obviously about other ongoing issues out there and i do know from speaking with chief building inspector patrick
6:11 pm
reardon, those issues are being dealt with in the department is doing with the siding issue and also the allegation of improper work being done in the other building permits with regards to work on a new framing in their existing framing. the discussion, i know, patrick was speaking with christine hall from the planning department enforcement division today could so, i would imagine the be a site visit and no go over thing that's been brought up up. but in regards to the two building permits under review, i believe there properly issue. i'm available for any questions from the commissioners. >> thank you. >> we can take public comment. can i see a show of hands how many people plan to speak on
6:12 pm
this item? okay. if you can step forward and if you have not already filled out a speaker card it be helpful if you could do so and provide when to mr. can tear when you come up to speed. if you could line up on the far side of the room that would also help in the other side of the room. thank you. >> sylvia johnson. [inaudible] listen to this [inaudible] department that had [inaudible] detail that we need to [inaudible] put that in more detail. this commissioner and which have a lot of detail. put
6:13 pm
in writing. it was too much. therefore, [inaudible] department of inspections and i had already [inaudible] put more exams notice for [inaudible] control for inspections. [inaudible] because i already went to the school of hope, city college for [inaudible] take care of a child and [inaudible] administration.
6:14 pm
[inaudible] technology. to be safe on our inspections that we have [inaudible] closed down. we need to have america in all different states on this issue that we have clearly explained that we don't need competition because we have been fighting wars and wars. now were fighting wars and that i have family went through wars. i think that we have more
6:15 pm
[inaudible] on this issue to make america clean and sober and fill out some of these [inaudible] so that we won't have to go through this war. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> welcome. >> good evening. my name is kevin dwyer. the neighbor of mr. saunders. i lived in the valley four-since 1997. i have a laundry list of things, but it's evident that for another time. i would like you to see is some of the things we've had to suffer through what were having >> overhead, please. >> excuse me? is leadbetter is: despite photograph because i'm loud and complaint it's
6:16 pm
most like urine. the fact that they block the parking on the street and i felt threatened by their day laborers when i tried to take pictures of such. again, i have a laundry list that should be presented at another place but i like you want to draw your attention to today is this wonderful eyes whether calling a stairway. which is, again not according to plan. it is also about 5 inches on my property, and so i am going to be having this requested through civil action to come down. which will then make this entire staircase, according to my understanding, not according to code. which will be to know. which means men's of the pentagon after comeback in front of you guys. this is a very nice opportunity for you to stop this right now and get them back on track. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners
6:17 pm
and president lazarus. >> you are all good. don't worry. >> is okay. >> the last time i was here i thought she was president. anyway, thank you. nice to see you. so, i'm not going to speak-i'm to be honest i'm not there to speak to exactly the two permits here today. i'm going to speak to the whole project because my house actually, the back of this house the wall of this house is except the property line on my house. in my property. so, this house is literally in my face. i have watched the construction of this now for over a year, day in and day out. i'm retired so i am home now. i was stunned and appalled by the fact that
6:18 pm
this whole cottage that been a long time because i've lived there for nearly 27 years or something, was entirely basically demolished except for maybe little siding in the front . i've not walked around >> if you could speak into the microphone? because i'm sorry, commissioner. >> i'm sorry, commissioner. you know, i do not know was happening because i was never sent notice in terms of looking at the plants. i could not understand in this whole thing was being essentially demolished, how come the neighbors had not been noticed since this literally, you know, extremely important to me. i don't understand, really, listening tonight how this whole process was sort of
6:19 pm
allowed to happen because what i feel like now listening to all the permit issues and stuff, is that it was sort of like a bait and switch. that, all the little permits along the way adding this one and this one and this one, basically, what you end up with and what should've been in the beginning is basically, the whole thing and was torn down. so, i'm very upset. i will say this. so, thank you all and i hope there will be some, of huge opportunity to talk about this. thanks so much, commissioners >> do want to state your name for the record? >> i thought i did. margaret barron. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> welcome. >> i'm elenor dreier. i'm the
6:20 pm
wife of runny saunders. i live at 1712 sanchez could i'm not a party to >> your the spouse of a pound >> on the spouse ordinance you cannot speak under public comments but you could speak under rebuttal time. >> that's fine. okay. >> my name is runny saunders. on the appellants. >> you can't speak under public, get >> unspeaking under her tongue ordinance is there any other public comment? it looks like there isn't so we'll do our rebuttal. >> rebuttal. >> thank you. >> it's now it's time. come on up. the prices is right. >> thank you for hearing us. obviously there's a very large problem going on. in large part because there are eight properties surrounding this
6:21 pm
property and we all i've lived there for 10 years. some of these other people spoke and have lived there for 20 and 30. we are very close neighborhood. the gate that we speak of, i always get 24-hour notice. i used to take care of the old lady that live there. i would help clean up her yard. use it for moving materials in and out. not that big a deal really. so, and their workers actually broke our fence. so, i will talk about this notice of violation on one moment, but we went to a place and he said let's get rid of the quite why would we get rid of the gate? it's a neighborly easement. the gates and all the fences. that's just the way it's always been. we finally had a conversation about it and i said, well i would consider it except with a rodent problem in this neighborhood. if you build
6:22 pm
right against this fence is can become a rat habitat. as soon as they did put that framing up i started seeing rots in the backyard again. they don't build it on a property line of just point out it will make it too narrow of a walkway to actually get furniture into the place. but that's not my worry. i was issued a punitive notice of violation on my heartfelt and my sense. i am a general conjugate it took him 2 min. to clear this. i was given $1000 fine. i'm completely above the board. i'm asking you guys, the commission, in your understanding of this, to make sure that planning and dbi are enforcing the laws. i'm living by the laws. i'm doing my-i'm doing what i'm supposed to do and these guys are completely over building this. i am pro-development could i want a beautiful house back. i want a new couple there. the building
6:23 pm
onto our property until the building completely out of plan. it's kind of unforgivable, really. i one more thing i was going to say. lack of oversight and enforcement by the city agency favors these real estate developers rather than the people here building. i spent over $1 million on the second ip a lot of taxes. i want you guys to work for me. think you very much. i appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> this additional time left. you can- >> so, she got up notice of violation for illegal hot tub. it took me 45 seconds to find a permit online that he told last year for the hot talk but you got $1000 fine? release do you complain to the city and the fine ui thousand dollar? that's infuriating to me. then, the permit for the siding the original siding with her says remove or replace it, it says
6:24 pm
required. you look at the drawings. there's woman got up they got called on it. they pulled a permit to do more siding and it says not visible from the street. it did not go to planning. it's visible from the streets. either you guys let him keep going but he said it doesn't matter any figure it out for you guys say, stop. no more work until they get this figured out and then report back. the right thing to do is a continuance of this hearing to planning and building can respond back to the board about this out-of-control project. >> good evening. sorry i've a couple points to make taking into consideration the appellants arguments. first of all, i've nothing to do with the easement is. there was another attorney involved to my involvement with this case and i'm not clear on what that all has to do with their construction and demolition without a permits. secondly,
6:25 pm
with respect to the permit issue i completely appreciate commissioner lazarus is to permits i've appealed really don't have much to do in the great scheme of things. except for the fact that, the other permits that were issued were appropriate but they are building outside those permits. so, that is what is very important to understand. that the time the permits are issued they seemed very reasonable and in project sponsor proceeds to build outside the approval of the permits. thirdly, with respect to the fence i want to bring to the attention of the commission about which i'm not clear on, recently, photographs were taken and i want to be clear, all of the photographs taken whenever trespassing on the project sponsors property. this is all from the neighborhood side of the property. here is an example of a trench being billed at the property and were not clear on what the trench is but we suspect what it is is a footing to allow the sort of a box to be put, which will attach to what we call a r in j that so
6:26 pm
as to allow eight larger deck ultimate in the property. again the permit was issued to we don't really know. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> if we cannot rebuttal from the permit holder. >> so, hello again you first and foremost i want to reiterate we can here to discuss the to permits at issue did i just want to respond to that last comment. i'm not really clear what that picture was opted i cannot really see it. everybody that's been talking tonight talk about our plans not matching the our drawings match what we are building. what went to planning matches. someone mentioned to me the other day they thought that the front deck we were putting on was exceeding the size what was on the plans. what they are looking at is temporary placing because were using the deck to store
6:27 pm
material on. if you go to the deck, you can see those persons are coming off. the actual size reflects what is on the plans. these claims are nothing more than an opportunity to slow our project down. so that we alternately either go bankrupt were given in and provide and easements. i want to also say that i have e-mails between myself and mr. saunders. multiple times in the winter, i asked him about replacing the fence. because it was our intention to do so. i asked him about replacing the fence on december 15 and i also asked him again about replacing the fence on january 12th. in december he told me that he would get back to me when he looks at the fence. in january
6:28 pm
the was no response. then, on january 25 he e-mailed me letting me know that he'll let me know what the costs are once he gets there. i responded saying, hold on. i e-mailed you to find out if you and the neighbors want to get together and replace the whole fence and share the cost. i cannot say i'm going to pay you to replace your fence. i have e-mails with this discussion. all of these claims are nothing more than frivolous in order to stop our project. i am asking you, deny the appeal. let us finish this properly and let us move on. by the way, were not developers. as i said last year when we were here for another pill, this is my first project with my dad using savings. were not flippers. were not these evil people did i been in san francisco since the age of
6:29 pm
four. i went to public school here. and as san franciscan as any of these people are. things otherwise it's just wrong. so were asking for your help here. thank you. >> thank you. >> and eight thing further mr. peek >> i don't have anything good i was going to reiterate that if you have any questions about the other permits were the enforcement issues or anything related i'm happy to answer those questions that are not going to unless you have specific questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> inspector duffy. >> commissioners, i too will be brief on this one. the issues with the building inspector and the conversations were had, i think i'm a senior building inspector went to my inspectors treats someone like
6:30 pm
that i'm sure i'm going to get a complaint and i'm going to be involved in it. i know, i think this has risen to the level of chief building inspector and he is doing with this. there was also an e-mail to one of our management team, bill strong from supervisor wagner's office a couple days ago mr. powers who works for him. i know that outlined that was from the appellant through the supervisor's office. that i was being handled by patrick as well pack patrick o'riordan will probably create a complaint and a did mentioned a lot of the issues were brought up here tonight. i would anticipate if this complaint that would be handled by senior building inspector at a minimum. maybe mr. jamison be with them but that would be with the
6:31 pm
departments would be doing regarding the other issue. just want to let you know that. because are you finished the month >> yes because i question, how long this is before us lasted i vaguely remember., stunned you think you would take the department to unwind this because from looking at it, it's kind of a mess and then we've got-we've got the appellants that are talking about something that's not what were here to talk about. there's grease situations and under one open that can of worms writenow, but at this point >> i don't know. i really don't because these things can take what it can take 4-6 weeks many minimum. it's a good plans. the deadlines. we had to go out with planning as well. i don't know. but i did see an e-mail with patrick or statement from patrick where he said that all work at the [inaudible] is covered under the permits but the were notices of violation on the property as were. looks like they do have a handle on it. if
6:32 pm
for example the allegation of a demolition is proven to be correct the be a stop work order on the. the be another permit required. the siding issue with the planning, needs to look at this that's another permit. we could see more permits it. if that is the case >> personally that's when i'm thinking after meeting with the departments internally this would this is going to unwind outside of the term to permits here before us to get >> i think so. normally in the situations with a consultant involves an attorney we definitely would be used to that. >> i don't think it's got on monday just want to come back >> yes, just come back. it's a tree. it's been a combo for us i dennis because i think we saw some of the statements from the appellant the notice of violation he got for his funds obviously there's a complaint filed. one property under the was a complaint filed on the neighbors property which we see a lot good weekends the flagpole lot nine neighbors,
6:33 pm
because good >> yes. i was a dbi want to get out there based on the complaint that we got recently from the supervisor's office. i will definitely be required we need to respond that get we have to respond to that. >> thank you inspector duffy. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i've not heard anything about these two >> exactly. yes. >> i believe inspector duffy himself said as far as he's concerned it's a separate issue. i'm not inclined, in the lease, to allow these to be the path to other discussions. i think there's other ways to handle that so inclined to move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis they were properly issued. weekends i would agree..
6:34 pm
>> i would agree and this will come back to us. >> were not hunting. what is before us is what is before us. here no police about something else is not before us. i would support a motion. >> commissioner lazarus did you want to address having to remind you that issue was raised about revising one of the permits? >> yes. so, i guess do we grant the appeal and >> one of them >> you want to separate them >> i think we need to. one needs to be denied and wants to be granted if that's what you want to do >> to recommend which is which >> sure. i think your motion would be to deny the appeal number 16-116 on the basis it was properly issued an and to grant 16-115 and issue the permit on the condition that plans be revised as indicated in their exhibit f
6:35 pm
>> perfectly articulated >> on the basis was properly issued >> i will make that my motion >> i just want to motions >> i'm not sure i would go that way. i think the question is, i'm not sure we want to get involved in solving one of the issues. by granting it in accepting the revision that it's not appeal. >> so what is your recommendation vice president fung >> white it out and it's up to them how to deal with it >> you would [inaudible] >> yes. i would deny both appeals. >> find >> okay with that are executive director >> okay. absolutely. because was that clear? >> absolutely. i just want to
6:36 pm
remind you of that request but of course it's the board's decision as to how to address it. is that your motion than commissioner lazarus >> yes. denied both appeals and approve permits on the basis they were properly issued >> on emotion than from commissioner lazarus, vice president fung aye honda aye wilson aye. your vote on this motion to deny the appeal? >> [inaudible] >> i cannot hear what you said >> aye >> thank you. that motion passes 4-0. there's no further business before the board this evening. >> thank you very much. >> >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> >> >>
6:37 pm
6:38 pm
6:39 pm
6:40 pm